U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations Susan Rice has been the target of criticism after she said the attack on the U.S. consulate in Libya was a spontaneous reaction to an anti-Muslim film on YouTube.Bebeto Matthews, AP file photo

That wasn't enough. Rice threw in the towel on Thursday, withdrawing her name from consideration for secretary of state. In a column in the Washington Post titled "Why I made the right call," Rice said her nomination would spark an "enduring partisan battle" that would distract from "urgent national priorities":

I have never sought in any way, shape or form to mislead the American people. To do so would run counter to my character and my life of public service. But in recent weeks, new lines of attack have been raised to malign my character and my career. Even before I was nominated for any new position, a steady drip of manufactured charges painted a wholly false picture of me. This has interfered increasingly with my work on behalf of the United States at the United Nations and with America's agenda. I grew up in Washington, D.C., and I've seen plenty of battles over politics and policy. But a national security appointment, much less a potential one, should never be turned into a political football. There are far bigger issues at stake. So I concluded this distraction has to stop.

Her most distinguishing trait seems to be an eagerness to please her superiors, which is entirely consistent with how she rode the escalator to success. Want to avoid declaring that genocide is taking place in Rwanda? Go to Rice. Want to fudge the facts in Libya? Rice is there again. Obama had it right when he observed that she "had nothing to do with Benghazi and was simply making a presentation based on intelligence that she had received." But why, as Maureen Dowd asked, didn't she question it? The answer is simple: Because she rarely, if ever, questions authority. Instead she has made a career out of catering to it.

And although President Obama publicly defended Rice, USA Today columnist Tom DeFrank doesn't believe Rice "voluntarily" decided to pull her name from contention:

There's no doubt Obama's defense of Rice was heartfelt. But any president, even one fresh from a convincing re-election victory, has only so much political capital to expend. He knew Rice's nomination would have precipitated a legislative food fight with Senate Republicans whose goodwill - and votes - he needs for the titanic budget battles ahead. ... White House political handlers understood that Rice was simply too much of a liability to Obama's strategic agenda, and his legacy, over the next four years. Simply stated, she flunked the risk-reward test. So she purportedly decided to opt out herself, sparing the president considerable grief. That's the way it's done in Washington - at least for public consumption. The reality is almost always otherwise.

The GOP attacks on Rice were often unfair and harsh, Washington Post columnist Ruth Marcus says, but she adds the White House did not handle the situation well. She also says President Obama's defense of Rice was interesting:

I am not saying that the president is sexist, not at all. But I think that phrasing is telling -- besmirch her reputation, go after me -- and I doubt that he would have used that language in coming to the defense of a man who was a potential nominee. And in coming out so gallantly in support of Rice, Obama unwittingly upped the expectational ante over her prospects: Why would he be so adamant if he didn't know he wanted her? Which leads me to the real unfairness to Rice: How could the administration have left her twisting for nearly a month while it calibrated the likelihood -- and likely costs -- of pressing the nomination? Perhaps Rice herself added to those costs: first, the unusual decision, seemingly hers, to make the rounds of Senate courtesy calls as a non-nominee; second, the amazing outcome of having such courtesy calls put her in a seemingly worse position than where she started. But, really, Mr. President, either nominate her or pick someone else -- like, two weeks ago.

On CNN, David Rothkopf offers the theory that Rice's decision to withdraw might be "the luckiest day of Susan Rice's life." Rothkopf believes Rice is qualified to be secretary of state and was "cheated" out of the job. Being America's top diplomat during the next several years will be a very difficult task, he says:

More daunting by far is the world that will confront the next secretary. Not only do we face a situation in the greater Middle East that may be more dangerous than it has been at any time in history, but in case after case, America's leverage is weak, our options are lousy and our enemies are well-positioned. ... None of this means calamity is certain. None of this assures American decline. I for one, believe the United States will be the world's sole superpower for many decades to come. But what it does mean is that over the next four years we will face extraordinary challenges worldwide and at home. And for those reasons, it may well be that being the next secretary of state will be every bit as great a trial as it is an honor.

Follow Us

cleveland.com is powered by Plain Dealer Publishing Co. and Northeast Ohio Media Group. All rights reserved (About Us).The material on this site may not be reproduced, distributed, transmitted, cached or otherwise used, except with the prior written permission of Northeast Ohio Media Group LLC.